By Richard M. Scheffler, Ola Abdelhadi | Published April 21, 2023 in Oxford Academic | Link to Full Article
Older Americans have unique health needs that require specialized care and support. As people age, they are more likely to develop multiple chronic conditions such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and arthritis, which can greatly affect their quality of life (Boyd et al., 2019). Additionally, older adults may also experience physical and cognitive declines, which can make it difficult for them to manage their own healthcare. Access to healthcare and supportive services is crucial for older Americans to maintain their health and independence. Services such as home healthcare, nursing homes, and hospice care play a vital role in helping older adults lead fulfilling lives and maintain their quality of life for as long as possible. The majority of hospice patients are diagnosed with one or more chronic conditions, with cancer being the most common (29.6%), followed by circulatory or heart disease (17.4%) and dementia (15.6%) (Hospice Facts & Figures, 2020). Meanwhile, as the American population of persons aged 65 years and over will soon outnumber those under 18 year of age, there are concerns about the quality of care for older Americans as the healthcare industry shifts towards private equity (PE) ownership (Braun, Stevenson, et al., 2021).
By Stephen M. Shortell, Brent D. Fulton, and Leeann N. Comfort | Published October 13, 2021 in Health Affairs Blog | Link to Full Article
People living in rural America have lower incomes, less education, and are in poorer health than those living in other areas of the United States. For more than a century, these measures have been “sticky” with little change despite many efforts to do so.
This article explores methods of supporting the development of these communities.
By Richard M. Scheffler, Laura M. Alexander, and James R. Godwin | Published May 18, 2021 | Press Release | Link to Full Report
A decade’s worth of evidence supports troubling findings that private equity business practices have a negative impact on competition in healthcare and on patients. A new white paper, produced by experts at UC Berkeley and the American Antitrust Institute (AAI), calls for immediate attention to the role that private equity investment plays in harming patients and impairing the functioning of the healthcare industry. In this groundbreaking new white paper, Soaring Private Equity Investment in the Healthcare Sector: Consolidation Accelerated, Competition Undermined, and Patients at Risk, AAI’s Laura Alexander and Professor Richard Scheffler of The Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley detail the emerging threat posed by private equity investment in healthcare markets.
The report details and measures private equity trends for the overall healthcare sector and provides a deep dive into four particular areas: hospitals and inpatient services, clinics and outpatient services, elderly and disabled care, and pharmaceuticals. However, the data do not tell the complete story. Several concerns are analyzed by presenting case studies of private equity involvement in healthcare and reporting evidence on the impact private equity investment has had on health and quality. Drawing on these data and examples, the major threats and risks to competition posed by the injection of private equity business practices into healthcare markets are identified and analyzed. The report summarizes what state and federal legislators have done to address the financial impacts of such behavior and presents suggested actions and potential policy solutions.
By Richard M. Scheffler and Taylor L. Wang | Published September 21, 2020 in Milbank Quarterly Opinion | Link to Full Article
There is little doubt that the cost of health care and universal coverage will be a major topic discussed at the upcoming presidential debates. A key debate will likely center on the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force’s recommendations released earlier this year proposing a public option to compete against existing private insurers. The recommendations only outline a public option framework, so the details, both logistical and financial, will be key to moving forward. While recent articles have assessed the state-level public options in Washington State and New Mexico, we look internationally to Germany and Australia to evaluate how their health care systems have achieved universal coverage by delivering public health insurance. Both countries have a private component in the health insurance system: Germany allows individuals to purchase substitutive private insurance based on income, and Australia takes it a step further by creating incentives for all citizens to enroll in supplemental private insurance. We examine the framework of each system, how the public-private insurance dichotomy is organized, and some key takeaways for the United States.
By Richard M. Scheffler and Taylor L. Wang | Published September 21, 2020 | Link to Full Article
Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s proposal for a public option is likely to be a major topic in the upcoming presidential debate. While the proposal certainly isn’t the first of its kind, in light of the recent COVID-19 pandemic it is especially significant due to the rapid increase in the number of people without insurance. To better understand the arguments for this proposal and other public option or opt out proposals, we discuss the following: (1) Jacob Hacker’s original ideas and arguments for a public option and why it was left out of the ACA, (2) A review of the cost and coverage impacts of various public option reforms conducted by the Urban Institute, (3) An examination of the only state-based public option passed by Washington State, (4) The current version of Biden’s public option, and (5) Final thoughts.
By Stephen M. Shortell, Richard M. Scheffler, Shivi Anand, and Daniel Arnold | Published May 8, 2019 | Link to Report
This Brief highlights 1) California’s comparative advantage in having a large number of integrated care model physician organizations; 2) provides evidence on their ability to provide lower cost, higher quality value-based care; and 3) proposes a plan for expanding such models across the state to meet the ongoing needs and preferences of all Californians that will have universal health insurance coverage.
By Richard M. Scheffler and Stephen M. Shortell | Published February 24, 2019 | Link to Full Report
As of 2017, California’s uninsured rate stands at just over 7 percent. Moving towards universal health coverage in California for the 3.72 million projected to be uninsured in 2020, of which about 1.5 million are undocumented, is a significant challenge but has considerable benefits. A healthier workforce will be more productive and absenteeism will decline.4 Moreover, taxes collected from these healthier workers will increase. All Californians will have their risk of disease lowered. Universal coverage will allow all Californians to have improved access to care so they can prevent and treat illnesses that can be passed on to others. Children will have a better start to life and there will be less absenteeism in schools. In addition, the expensive treatment in emergency rooms would surely decline. Beyond these benefits for all Californians, it is the right thing to do. Most Californians support universal coverage, but have reservations about the cost of doing so.
By Richard M. Scheffler and Jessica Foster | Published January 31, 2014 by the Petris Center | Link to Full Report
In its first several months of open enrollment, Covered California despite its challenges has been a bright spot among state health insurance Exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act. About 23% of national enrollments in 2013 came from California. More than 1.4 million California residents have completed Covered California applications, more than 625,000 people have enrolled in subsidized or unsubsidized health plans, and more than 1.2 million are expected to be newly enrolled in Medi-Cal. Though it experienced a slow start in October, Covered California by the end of the year had surpassed its enrollment goal for the first half of open enrollment. This report provides a summary of the Covered California rollout, including a breakdown of application and enrollment trends, plan affordability and cost estimations, and questions and concerns for future analysis.
Edited by Agnes Soucat, Richard M. Scheffler, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus | Published April 2013 by the World Bank Group | Link to Full Book
Addressing the challenge of decent healthcare and education for low-income families is critical to building the human capital that African countries need to sustain economic growth in the years ahead. Within this broad goal, specific challenges linked to Human Resources for Health (HRH) in Africa must be addressed to achieve stronger health systems, universal access to health services, and greater improvements in actual health outcomes. Today, it is widely recognized among Ministries of Health and development partners that the overall availability, distribution, and performance of health workers in Africa must be rapidly improved.
By Richard M. Scheffler | Published in 2008 by Stanford University Press | Link to Book Website
This book explores American’s bedrock healthcare concern – “Will there be a doctor―a good doctor―when I need one?” In this concise and readable analysis, Scheffler goes beyond the guessing game to demonstrate that today’s health care system is the product of financial influences in both the policy realm and on the ground in the offices of medical centers, HMOs, insurers, and physicians throughout America. He shows how factors such as physician income, medical training costs, and new technologies affect the specialties and geographic distribution of doctors. As part of his vision of tomorrow’s ideal workforce, he offers a template for enhancing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the health care system overall. In the groundbreaking second half of the book, Scheffler tests his ideas in conversations with leading figures in health policy, medical education, health economics, and physician practice. Their unguarded give-and-take offers a window on the best thinking currently available anywhere.